|
Some of the responses in this thread are interesting. How can anyone consider players reading a module/AP in advance cheating? Or going to a forum to look for help on how to build a character for it? I mean seriously you don't think people will go out and simply read it for themselves in a post internet world?
As long as people don't let their OOC knowledge flavor their IC knowledge what's the harm?
Just curious...if you tell a group of players that you are going to run them through [Insert Adventure Name Here] and one of them then reads that adventure, what do you call him/her? A real go-getter? An advanced planner? Upper management material? Head of his class? I mean seriously, you don't think that such doesn't affect the adventure?
To answer your question...I don't think that the majority of players would go read an adventure that their GM told them they were getting ready to run through. Some people...yes, but those are the kind of people that some GM's don't want screwing up the adventure for everyone else.
I specifically avoid reading any adventure path or module information... Why? Because I'm a player...not a GM...and I realize that you can never truly react the same way, or make the same choices you would make, once you know something. ...and I like that feeling of the unknown...of really placing myself in my character and figuring it out, of seeing the adventure untainted by meta-players. Does that mean that I wouldn't replay an adventure I have already played? Of course not...but I would be glad that the first time I got to play it I did so as it was intended...as you can never experience that twice.
Some of the responses in this thread are interesting. How can anyone consider players reading a module/AP in advance cheating? Or going to a forum to look for help on how to build a character for it? I mean seriously you don't think people will go out and simply read it for themselves in a post internet world?
As long as people don't let their OOC knowledge flavor their IC knowledge what's the harm?
Just curious...if you tell a group of players that you are going to run them through [Insert Adventure Name Here] and one of them then reads that adventure, what do you call him/her? A real go-getter? An advanced planner? Upper management material? Head of his class? I mean seriously, you don't think that such doesn't affect the adventure?
To answer your question...I don't think that the majority of players would go read an adventure that their GM told them they were getting ready to run through. Some people...yes, but those are the kind of people that some GM's don't want screwing up the adventure for everyone else.
I specifically avoid reading any adventure path or module information... Why? Because I'm a player...not a GM...and I realize that you can never truly react the same way, or make the same choices you would make, once you know something. ...and I like that feeling of the unknown...of really placing myself in my character and figuring it out, of seeing the adventure untainted by meta-players. Does that mean that I wouldn't replay an adventure I have already played? Of course not...but I would be glad that the first time I got to play it I did so as it was intended...as you can never experience that twice.
I don't really "call" them anything. I assume at least one or more players in a group will go out and read up on an AP or module ahead of time. None of the players I have played with that did that spoiled it for anyone else by their actions or IC conversations.
This is a post internet world with spoilers everywhere. I liken the outrage of some posters here with players reading ahead to the same outcry when a person is on social media and people are giving spoilers due a live broadcast of a tv show or a movie. We know it is going to happen so why get upset over it?
|
|
I know the pain of finding out one of your players has read the adventure. I tend to ignore it regardless of how much it needles me when I say, "Wait til you guys see what's coming up!"
and he says, "Yeah it's pretty crazy!"
I think at this point what you are waiting for is the 'character' seeming to know things that he should not otherwise know. Given a few warnings and chances to change his or her ways I would eventually ask them to sit out of the game until it's completion.
Obviously that's kind of harsh for some of the longer adventure path or large scale adventures but with warnings.
Finally, I would definitely consider changing the location of trapped doors / chests / and secret doors.
A common thing here is a player who has fought an enemy before and knows its stats (or has GM'd the enemy before) and has difficulty separating this meta-knowledge from their character. This happens a LOT in PFS. An example being one time I saw a player who didn't want to attack a Skeleton with his Scimitar because he knew they had DR Bludgeoning (and he had no Bludgeoning weapon), but he had already failed his knowledge check to identify them (and being level 1, hadn't fought them before). But the DM told him he had to act based on his character's knowledge. He got so frustrated by being unable to separate meta-knowledge from character knowledge that he actually left the game and I hadn't seen him since.
That's pretty sad because it's not that hard to fix an issue like that - well, maybe it's hard because it depends on the player taking a different attitude to the game. But if I'm given a situation with a player like that, I'd be saying, "So, you as a player know something about that creature but your PC doesn't. How do you play out the discovery so your PC does know what you know?" And yeah, that PC would be best advised to actually go up and fight that skeleton with his scimitar, notice that he's not affecting it significantly, and then have the epiphany that leads to his PC having a clue.
And that's the shift in player attitude - from using what you know to play optimally, to playing out how the PC makes the discovery - even if he takes a few hard knocks on the way or is less optimal in the meantime.
This is a post internet world with spoilers everywhere....Um, so what?
Going out to read the adventure before hand is nothing like stumbling across a discussion where someone slips out a bit of information. There is literally not similarity between the two at all. Reading the adventure is also nothing like going to a forum for advice on building a character for a campaign; a player should be able to get equally good advice for campaign appropriate character creation from his own GM.
The ONLY reason a person would do this is to gain an advantage in playing through the path. There is just no other reason to do it.
You are more than allowed to have a differing opinion but the last part is patently untrue. The non "cheating" reason a person would want to read the AP/module before playing it is to get the background information on the setting and NPCs that you otherwise would never get through the actual playing of the game.
|
What do folks think about players frequently looking up the spells your encounters are using or abilities that come from classes and archtypes? Is this also a step too far? I ask because this happens all the time when I run games to the point where I wonder if PF has been written to offer breaks in the game for rules debating. I think with the availability of the rules via phone apps and the SRD the access to rules in between turns seems to just be something folks do now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a post internet world with spoilers everywhere....Um, so what?
....
The ONLY reason a person would do this is to gain an advantage in playing through the path. There is just no other reason to do it.
That is not accurate (the *ONLY* part), and I am sure Paizo would like you to be wrong too or only would-be GMs would ever buy modules/APs.
Another reason someone might like to read an AP is that they have a lot of lore and can be fun to read. I enjoy reading them, and I am sure others do as well. Of course, I also ask my GM which he plans on running so I can avoid those because I don't want to ruin the surprise.
Now, reading through it after you join a game that is playing it is probably ill-advised, but some can't help themselves. At any rate, having a priori knowledge of a module or AP isn't necessarily cheating. It is cheating when you use that knowledge "in character", and it is being a jerk when you use that knowledge to ruin other people's experience (which is totally a bootable offense, imo, if it persists).
Now in this case, the player in question simply mapped out the loot, presumably to make things easier to track later. Did they read the encounters or just the loot? Who knows. It is possible skim through the encounters and read the bit on the treasure without spoiling everything for yourself. If they aren't ruining the game, there should be no issue then. The GM already says that he likes the player.
Don't be so quick to judge when you don't have all the facts...
Big difference between checking rules and reading a written module to find out what is going to happen in advance. It is like looking at the answers to a quiz game, or memorising the order of cards in a deck.
Making a list so the player can print out loot cards is possibly one of the most ludicrous reasons for cheating I have ever heard.
Simple - read the module - boot from the group.
What do folks think about players frequently looking up the spells your encounters are using or abilities that come from classes and archtypes? Is this also a step too far? I ask because this happens all the time when I run games to the point where I wonder if PF has been written to offer breaks in the game for rules debating. I think with the availability of the rules via phone apps and the SRD the access to rules in between turns seems to just be something folks do now.
With how we play, if you've correctly identified the spell through spellcraft, then you can *generally* use your player knowledge.
Classes/abilities are trickier because there is not some pool of information like spells. A PC can recall there is a spell called mirror image and what it does. It doesn't make as much sense as, 'ooh he is an assassin so he has a Death Effect that does this ...'. PCs should learn about this through experience only, imo. Is it ok for the Player to look it up? Sure I don't see why not. It is in the rulebook and not in the module/AP. Should the player act on this knowledge? I would say *No*, at least not until they have made an appropriate check or witnessed/encountered it.
Of course, our group is also very capable of separating Player vs. PC knowledge, and we are all good friends who have gamed together for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big difference between checking rules and reading a written module to find out what is going to happen in advance. It is like looking at the answers to a quiz game, or memorising the order of cards in a deck.
Simple - read the module - boot from the group.
So you are basically also saying that anyone who has played a module can never play it again, in your opinion. GMs can't also be players if they've read the module. And, no one should have a module subscription that isn't a full-time GM...
Player maturity should decide these issues, not a checkbox, "Have you ever read the adventure"...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as people don't let their OOC knowledge flavor their IC knowledge what's the harm?
Because it's near impossible to say what a character might have done if the player had no knowledge of what's to come. Not automatically attacking a creatures vulnerabilities because you rolled poorly on knowledge is a poor replacement for going into the adventure blind. It casts doubt on almost every portion of the game, like, would the fighter have bought scrolls of lesser restoration if he didn't know there was a creature that caused strength damage in the adventure? Maybe, maybe not. It might have even been something they usually did, but may have forgotten about. If you read through the adventure, you probably won't forget.
And this goes both ways, I've seen characters fluke into doing exactly the right thing when encountering creatures they've never heard of. If you've read the adventure before you've basically eliminated this opportunity. You're either doing what you know is effective, or choosing to not do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player has played a module already I would expect them to declare it in advance. Then we can have a discussion about how to adapt things. That said, with sooooo much module choice, why run and adventure that someone has already done.
I dont think subscribers that arent GMs should read all the modules, no. That is just odd.
Its also disrespectful to the GM who is create a sense of adventure. If you know what room has the prisoner, or who killed the merchant prince, or what the BBEG's tactics are then why have a GM - go read a book.
Knowing that giants have low ref saves is knowledge of the game.
The problem the the OP has is knowledge of the story
Can you see the difference?
It must be cool to have such a large player base that you can kick people for inane reasons.
Why should the GM have exclusive access to huge portions of the game? It's a collective experience and the GM is better cast as a referee than a tyrant.
Giantslayer has giants? Scandalous!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, just set a standard for honesty and then expect it be followed. Don't play with cheats. It is a lesson people should learn as children.
|
|
This is a post internet world with spoilers everywhere....Um, so what?
....
The ONLY reason a person would do this is to gain an advantage in playing through the path. There is just no other reason to do it.
That is not accurate (the *ONLY* part), and I am sure Paizo would like you to be wrong too or only would-be GMs would ever buy modules/APs.
Another reason someone might like to read an AP is that they have a lot of lore and can be fun to read. I enjoy reading them, and I am sure others do as well. Of course, I also ask my GM which he plans on running so I can avoid those because I don't want to ruin the surprise.
Now, reading through it after you join a game that is playing it is probably ill-advised, but some can't help themselves. At any rate, having a priori knowledge of a module or AP isn't necessarily cheating. It is cheating when you use that knowledge "in character", and it is being a jerk when you use that knowledge to ruin other people's experience (which is totally a bootable offense, imo, if it persists).
Now in this case, the player in question simply mapped out the loot, presumably to make things easier to track later. Did they read the encounters or just the loot? Who knows. It is possible skim through the encounters and read the bit on the treasure without spoiling everything for yourself. If they aren't ruining the game, there should be no issue then. The GM already says that he likes the player.
Don't be so quick to judge when you don't have all the facts...
That's well and fine if the player declares in advance that they have read the module being played. Otherwise you have meta-knowledge that your GM is not aware that you have. Some GMs aren't comfortable running a module for someone who has already played or read it, and the GM has a right to know if any of his players have this kind of meta-knowledge. If the GM has the time to (some don't), they can make changes so the meta-knowledge isn't as much of an advantage and to keep the player from ever considering relying on it.
If you're honest about your meta-knowledge, than in many cases it is excusable and can be worked around. If you hide your meta-knowledge that is dishonesty, and no GM would be in the wrong for taking issue with it.
As someone who has replayed a few PFS scenarios (not for credit, just to make a legal table) I can personally attest to how difficult it can be to separate some meta-knowledge (despite really wanting to)... Especially when its something hidden like a particularly nasty trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calling any of what has been brought up so far "cheating" seems disingenuous. It hardly seems malicious on the players part.
Meta-gaming is certainly a problem that can be discussed openly at any table. Especially because people often forget that GMs are often the worst offenders when it comes to meta-gaming. Kicking someone from the table because they didn't go on a self-imposed hiatus? That's more than a little extreme.
|
|
Calling any of what has been brought up so far "cheating" seems disingenuous. It hardly seems malicious on the players part.
Meta-gaming is certainly a problem that can be discussed openly at any table. Especially because people often forget that GMs are often the worst offenders when it comes to meta-gaming. Kicking someone from the table because they didn't go on a self-imposed hiatus? That's more than a little extreme.
It is a little extreme, only like one of the earliest posts in this thread insisted on such a harsh, black and white approach.
What has been repeated however is that there is an expectation of honesty, and that dishonesty carries repercussions. Individual circumstances may vary, but generally speaking dishonesty over meta-knowledge of the specifics of a module should not be tolerated (with varying degrees of severity depending on circumstances).
Calling any of what has been brought up so far "cheating" seems disingenuous. It hardly seems malicious on the players part.
Meta-gaming is certainly a problem that can be discussed openly at any table. Especially because people often forget that GMs are often the worst offenders when it comes to meta-gaming. Kicking someone from the table because they didn't go on a self-imposed hiatus? That's more than a little extreme.
It is a little extreme, only like one of the earliest posts in this thread insisted on such a harsh, black and white approach.
What has been repeated however is that there is an expectation of honesty, and that dishonesty carries repercussions. Individual circumstances may vary, but generally speaking dishonesty over meta-knowledge of the specifics of a module should not be tolerated (with varying degrees of severity depending on circumstances).
Meta-knowledge itself is hardly the problem. Otherwise I'd expect to see similar threads calling for an end to the possible advantage a GM would have from looking at character sheets. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that meta-knowledge should be an assumed part of the game. I'd be extremely skeptical of a group that claimed to be totally free of it.
Groups should be encouraged to discuss it and come to a consensus among themselves and this thread has some good examples of that. I'm just a little when I see otherwise. Metagaming is a symptom, not the disease, in my eyes.
What about ruining the game for the DM? Are we adding prior sight of the adventure script to the growing list of entitlements players feel they should have?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about ruining the game for the DM? Are we adding prior sight of the adventure script to the growing list of entitlements players feel they should have?
No? It doesn't matter either way if a player has prior knowledge. Considering most APs provide a primer, plot synopsis on the back of each book, and obvious titles like Giantslayer, Reign of Winter, and Iron Gods it's more ridiculous to assume that a player wouldn't have some kind of inkling as to what's going on.
Maybe, if you want all of your games to happen in a vacuum devoid of player input, you should go read a book because at this point you're pulling down anyone who has the audacity to enjoy the game beyond some forced narrative.
What about ruining the game for the DM? Are we adding prior sight of the adventure script to the growing list of entitlements players feel they should have?
Do you never replay an AP or module? I mean this is bordering on the silly. It does not diminish the DM or anything else if players read up on things or go to forums to get character creation help. The only way it diminishes if the players ACTIVELY use OOC knowledge as their characters to make decisions.
Knowing that giants have low ref saves is knowledge of the game.
The problem the the OP has is knowledge of the story
Can you see the difference?
There may be a difference but knowledge of the story doesn't mean the player is cheating. Some players are quite good at keeping the player knowledge separate from PC knowledge. Some can even use their foreknowledge of the story to enhance the experience for everyone.
That said, reading through an adventure to write up the list of loot, that does strike me as running into inappropriate use, particularly if the GM doesn't remember giving that permission.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I actually employ my players to keep track of certain things for me.
IMO metagaming is only a problem if they use the information in game to make in character decisions, if he just looked ahead to make the book work faster, I wouldn't consider that cheating at all, in fact I might reward the player. The party cleric is team treasurer, whose job is to keep track of loot (as it is encountered) and the money gained from it. The party bard keeps track of the logs, how many days are spent during adventuring/downtime, important (and sometimes unimportant) NPCs, and ongoing world events. Having them do the work lets me focus on making a better game.
There's really not much wrong with reading ahead in the first place, so long as the player doesn't spoil any surprises for anyone who doesn't want to be spoiled.
Option 4: Make it his job to keep track of loot, and take a break for that part of the game. Require him to read through what parts of the game you plan to go through prior to the sessons and make it his job to keep track of what loot they find. If you want to throw in something special, let him know first. Have him RP it so he doesn't break immersion, and the other players can react to finding the stuff in character.
Being too much of a control freak will cause you to lose friends and players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the difference between knowledge and inappropriate use of that knowledge as it pertains to game play and relates to the OP. Knowledge of what treasure is in a published module is not cheating. Trying to put forth that some of the treasure listed in that published module was earned by the characters when it clearly was not, is cheating.
Knowing that the goblin chieftain in area C-3 has a chest containing 3,300 gp worth of assorted coins, gems, and art objects is not cheating. Writing down that your character received that loot when your characters never even entered area C-3 is cheating.
Some people are very good at separating what they know from what their characters' know. Some people will take every scrap of advantage they can, earned or through subterfuge, because they forget that it's just a game.
because they forget that it's just a game.
That is the biggest thing in all of this nonsense. It is a game people, and more so it is supposed to be a game for fun with friends. Unfortunately, it has seemingly turned into an "I win" kind of game in some aspects, especially in PFS (at least imo).
|
That is the biggest thing in all of this nonsense. It is a game people, and more so it is supposed to be a game for fun with friends. Unfortunately, it has seemingly turned into an "I win" kind of game in some aspects, especially in PFS (at least imo).because they forget that it's just a game.
Why are winning and having fun with your friends mutually exclusive?
Edit: Not cheating specifically - but winning in general.
What about ruining the game for the DM? Are we adding prior sight of the adventure script to the growing list of entitlements players feel they should have?
I would argue that the GM's enjoyment shouldn't be based on whether or not a player knows the module story, but rather how the actual gaming sessions go. The GM already admitted he was a good player.
Some of the best roleplaying can happen because the players have read the in depth material that Paizo pours into the text but never actually comes out in the game itself. It just depends on your players and their level to abstract what they know vs. their characters.
Why are winning and having fun with your friends mutually exclusive?That is the biggest thing in all of this nonsense. It is a game people, and more so it is supposed to be a game for fun with friends. Unfortunately, it has seemingly turned into an "I win" kind of game in some aspects, especially in PFS (at least imo).because they forget that it's just a game.
One could say that having fun with your friends is winning. :)
Why are winning and having fun with your friends mutually exclusive?
They aren't until someone spoils the party
Edit: I didn't mean "I win" in terms of the fun of beating a module or BBEG, but the extremist version of winning at all costs. The attitude should be "we win" ...
I'm surprised by the number of folks who have appeared later in the thread to support reading adventures before you've played them. It seems like an ill-advised practice to me. Cannibalism has its proponents too, but I'm happy to accept it as a taboo and skip further discussion of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised by the number of folks who have appeared later in the thread to support reading adventures before you've played them. It seems like an ill-advised practice to me. Cannibalism has its proponents too, but I'm happy to accept it as a taboo and skip further discussion of it.
Right, right because eating people and reading a book are in some way related, at all...
O.o
|
|
I'm surprised by the number of folks who have appeared later in the thread to support reading adventures before you've played them. It seems like an ill-advised practice to me. Cannibalism has its proponents too, but I'm happy to accept it as a taboo and skip further discussion of it.
If you want to compare it to eating, it might rise to the level of slurping your soup.
|
|
I'm surprised by the number of folks who have appeared later in the thread to support reading adventures before you've played them. It seems like an ill-advised practice to me. Cannibalism has its proponents too, but I'm happy to accept it as a taboo and skip further discussion of it.
I'm a bit surprised too. Though the cannibalism hyperbole is a bit much.
Though I suppose they probably advocate reading walkthroughs before playing video games, or reading movie synopses before watching them, or opening to the last pages of a book before reading it.
Or lying to your friends about things they care about just because you feel it's harmless.
I can definitely understand replaying adventures, that's totally fine. I mean you already played it once, but shouldn't be barred from ever playing it again.
And I can understand reading the modules and APs if you're going through a tabletop dry-spell and need your fix of the lore/story. But if you're in an active community, or heck if you have an active group... why on earth would you feel the need to read an AP that you might end up playing? You can't be satisfied with what you're currently playing, so much that you have to spoil something you might play later?
Also the hell is with the opposition to being honest about having read the module or AP? If you've read it, for whatever reason, there's no reason to hide it (unless you're planning to abuse it, or maybe you're just a stubborn and entitled prick) but plenty of reason to inform your GM. Maybe the GM wasn't planning to change anything and wanted to run it as is, he's going to need to know so he can decide if he wants to change things or just trust you won't abuse your meta-knowledge of the module. The level of entitlement it takes to believe that dishonesty over something with high-propensity for abuse like that is acceptable is... astonishing really. You're not the only one playing the game, you have other players and a GM who want to enjoy it too, and trust issues do not make for a fun time.
If I had know that Battle of Bloodmarch Hill opened with a "whodunit" I wouldn't have spent a month of my life playing through it.
Prove meta-knowledge is an inherently bad thing and isn't an assumed part of the game.
Otherwise I can't see much else going on beyond "stop liking what I don't like".
|
|
If I had know that Battle of Bloodmarch Hill opened with a "whodunit" I wouldn't have spent a month of my life playing through it.
Prove meta-knowledge is an inherently bad thing and isn't an assumed part of the game.
Otherwise I can't see much else going on beyond "stop liking what I don't like".
Well. How about that whodunit right there. Knowing "whodunit"(whether intentionally or not) will inform your decision making as a player. It can be worked around if you tell your GM that you know already, they can perhaps make significant (or even minor) changes that dampen your advantage (or perhaps work that advantage into the story, by making you a witness with motives for not being forthright with your knowledge, in which case only the GM should know of your knowledge).
However you keep arguing a straw-man, the argument nobody has made that "all meta-knowledge is bad." No we have specifically been arguing that meta-knowledge of the specifics of a module can be problematic, and you need to be honest with your GM about that, but that it can be worked around. Being dishonest about it is often problematic as it can create major trust issues between you and the others due to the high-propensity for metagaming abuse. Being dishonest about it generally suggests a number of things; one that you have a motive for withholding the pertinent information, two that you can't be trusted not to metagame (compounded by the suspicion of a motive). If you had no intention of metagaming or cheating, why is it a problem to be honest and forthright?
Perhaps a bit less extreme than the example I'm about to present, but the principle is similar... You lived in an apartment that you moved out of, but you still have a copy of the key. Your friend moves in and doesn't know you have the key still. Maybe you had absolutely no intention of going into their home, well if your friend finds out about that key he's going to be pretty upset and probably change his locks... because how does he know you didn't make copies? Now if you just told him you had the key before he moved in, maybe he might be comfortable letting you hold onto it as an emergency key. Maybe he might want it back, cause he just isn't comfortable with anyone else having a key. But your honesty makes you more trustworthy, it makes the person less likely to suspect you of wrongdoing. The same thing with meta-knowledge, maybe the GM is fine with it and willing to trust you not to metagame due to your honesty.
And exceptional circumstances are only a valid argument against "always" or "never," not "often" or "can be."
Having read the blurb on the paizo website or on the back of the book is something else entirely, something nobody is going to be expected to share as it isn't really spoiling much. Being aware of some of the key events in an AP or Module isn't always going to be an issue either, the only real problem is knowledge of "specifics" Despite how much you insist it is (and it might be the case with your group), having read the entire module or AP that is going to be played is NOT an assumed part of GMing the game.
I think gnomersy did a pretty good job of building some logical arguments why pre-reading APs should be considered OK. I'm sure many more such arguments can be made. That's why I figure it might be better to view it as a taboo and therefore beyond discussion.
Q: "Why shouldn't I be allowed to X?"
A: "Just don't, OK?"
|
|
1) Who said to be dishonest about having read the module or AP because there were no posts that I saw that advocated that? I did say that if you are going to cheat then don't tell people. That's just a fact the same way you shouldn't video tape and put on youtube instances of you cheating in a game it's just cheating badly. I'd opt to not cheat if given the choice but if you're going to cheat it's assumed you're trying to cheat well.
This entire time Johnnycat nobody should expect their players to be honest about meta-knowledge. Insisting that it should just always be assumed that players have read the module or AP. He has been railing against the argument that meta-knowledge even has a propensity for being problematic.
2) People enjoy different things, some people love jump scares, and surprises, and cliffhangers, and some people abhor them. Let people enjoy the game however they want to enjoy it as long as they don't ruin it for everyone else. If they have more fun by reading the APs to get in the mood for RP or whatever that's fine. Besides in a game that meet once or twice a month there's an awful lot of empty non RP time between sessions which can really make you feel out of the story your characters are in which kinda sucks.
But why do you need to read ahead in the adventure you're currently playing? Are you so bloody impatient you can't wait till the next session? You can't occupy yourself playing or reading something else?
3) As far as supporting pre-reading adventures eh I don't do it but if someone does I'm not going to support someone else trying to shame them and tell them they're playing the game wrong because I'm not an a!*!*~!. Well I'm not always an a##$!+%.
Assuming the people are being honest about it. Yeah I agree, shaming them for it does make you an a*&~%$!.
But if they're being dishonest (the singular thing I've taken issue with) then... sure I'm such an a~*@%!! for finding it hard to trust someone who neglected to inform me about having information that would give them significant advantage, and eliminate much of the challenge should they choose to abuse it. I'm suuuuch an a~~**&! for expecting honesty.Nowhere in any of my posts have I shamed people for metaknowledge. I made it VERY explicit that there isn't a problem if you're honest about it to allow the GM to decide whether he would be more comfortable making changes to the module. I have made it very very clear that my problem is with dishonesty not metaknowledge in and of itself. Several others have attempted to shame people for not being totally comfortable with others being dishonest.
4) In regards to walkthroughs, synopses, etc. Who cares? If you don't like to play games or read books or watch movies like that then good for you do what makes you happy but if you see somebody look at the last page of the book and then read the rest of it or read a walkthrough then play a game do you run up to them and berate them and tell them they're ruining the experience? If you do I'm very happy I don't know you.
Did I berate anyone? No I took issue with advocating for it and shaming people who don't like doing it themselves, and who find it strange that other people like doing it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it isn't buried in my posts, since several people quoting me have clearly misunderstood my arguments.
Prereading an AP is fine in and of itself. But if you play it, tell your GM you read it, so it can be worked around or the GM can decide to just trust you not to metagame. You do not get to demand people just trust you, trust has to be earned, and can easily be lost through dishonesty.
Well. How about that whodunit right there. Knowing "whodunit"(whether intentionally or not) will inform your decision making as a player. It can be worked around if you tell your GM that you know already, they can perhaps make significant (or even minor) changes that dampen your advantage (or perhaps work that advantage into the story, by making you a witness with motives for not being forthright with your knowledge, in which case only the GM should know of your knowledge).If I had know that Battle of Bloodmarch Hill opened with a "whodunit" I wouldn't have spent a month of my life playing through it.
Prove meta-knowledge is an inherently bad thing and isn't an assumed part of the game.
Otherwise I can't see much else going on beyond "stop liking what I don't like".
My point in saying so is that if I had bothered to read the AP I would have known that there was a whodunit. I don't care what the conclusion of it was, nor do I want to play through it. I don't like playing mysteries in Pathfinder. In that light I would have suggested something other than Giantslayer when my group was casting votes for what to play. It could be said that not having read the AP spoiled my experience more than having read it.
However you keep arguing a straw-man, the argument nobody has made that "all meta-knowledge is bad." No we have specifically been arguing that meta-knowledge of the specifics of a module can be problematic, and you need to be honest with your GM about that, but that it can be worked around. Being dishonest about it is often problematic as it can create major trust issues between you and the others due to the high-propensity for metagaming abuse. Being dishonest about it generally suggests a number of things; one that you have a motive for withholding the pertinent information, two that you can't be trusted not to metagame (compounded by the suspicion of a motive). If you had no intention of metagaming or cheating, why is it a problem to be honest and forthright?
Frankly, in a reductionist sort of way I'd make the claim that The Sword argued "all meta-knowledge" is bad, at least in the context of APs.
That being said I absolutely agree that communicating with one another like adults is the best way to solve virtually any problem at a table. Given that the dialogue presented by the OP was more in-line with "BAN HE" I doubt that's a universal sentiment.
I don't have the same expectations of my players telling me what they have played because, frankly, it really doesn't matter to me. I also don't think it makes them purposefully dishonest when they don't say so. I don't demand they earn my trust, because I automatically trust anyone sitting at my table to not go out of their way to break the rules.
Having read the blurb on the paizo website or on the back of the book is something else entirely, something nobody is going to be expected to share as it isn't really spoiling much. Being aware of some of the key events in an AP or Module isn't always going to be an issue either, the only real problem is knowledge of "specifics" Despite how much you insist it is (and it might be the case with your group), having read the entire module or AP that is going to be played is NOT an assumed part of GMing the game.
Is there a meaningful difference? Specifics in this case is entirely context based.
To use an example: trumpetgate from Wrath of the Righteous. Certainly a key event by my own standards and without arguing whether or not I'm right in thinking so, I'll say that it is an absurd event. Accepting its absurdity as fact for the sake of this example, how much can a player be blamed if they read ahead specifically so they can avoid being stricken blind and forced into an alignment change?
Meta-gaming should and is an assumed part of the game. Players, for example, may decide on a plan of action OOC and then run with it without necessarily discussing it IC. The degree of meta-gaming is what is in question, and that varies entirely from table to table. Bad players will abuse it and good players won't, here I agree with you too. Beyond Pathfinder there are actually games that don't seperate what could be considered "GM knowledge" from the rest in their books.
It may be worth noting that I actually enjoy the experience of playing over whatever it is I'm playing through. Hence, I don't care about reading ahead because it doesn't change the quality of actually playing for me.
